Bill Collier- Under Progressivism the model of governance is based on a leadership philosophy that says “authority flows from the center and responsibility flows to the center.”
Decisions are made at the central point and lower level authorities carry them out until the regulations and rules are given to the individual. This may involve a majority vote by the populace, but even then the choices given to the population are limited by the leaders at the core through clever messaging, political correctness, and efforts to demonize anyone who doesn’t buy the party line.
Responsibility, on the other hand, goes from individuals who answer to the first outermost circle of petty officials and from them towards the next inner circle so that, ultimately, everyone is responsible to the central authority for their choices and actions.
Why do the Progressive spend so much, tax so much, print so much paper currency, make so many laws, create so many swarms of officials and agencies, and have so many complicated regulations, while saying they are “for the People”? The answer is simple- their leadership philosophy leaves them with no alternative but to originate authority over everyone from the center and to make everyone responsible towards the center.
They do not consider that they are making private people, private businesses, free associations of private people, and local communities all responsible to the government while removing government from any real accountability to the People who the Progressive say they champion.
It’s all bread and circuses and empty promises- they take your wealth, your independence, your liberty, and then your very dignity leaving you with grinding poverty and no answers other than to blame an innocent scapegoat.
In 1776 Thomas Paine penned his booklet, “Common Sense”, which denied the validity of the “Divine right of kings”, urged Americans to pursue independence, proposed that American and British interests were divergent, and made the case for the Colonies’ inherent ability to be independent.
Such a case must be made again, but this time we must deny the validity of progressive federalist doctrines, we must urge Americans to pursue true freedom (based on godliness, self-reliance, and true self-governance), we must show that the inherent interests of the Federal Power and the People in their communities are divergent, we must make the case for the inherent ability of people and communities to fend for themselves, and we must do so within a strong spiritual and ideational framework rooted in eternally valid but presently practicable truths and principles. (more…)
I pledge myself, according to the framework of freedom, to work daily to proclaim freedom to others, to stand up whenever anyone’s freedom is called into question, and to do my level best as a free citizen to assert and defend the rights, persons, and property of my fellow citizens against all sources of danger, whatever their origin, by all reasonable and legitimate means, SO HELP ME GOD!
EDITORIAL- Bill Collier – If Mitt Romney becomes the next President, what will America look like in 2013 and, for those who support him, or at least his promises, will that mean that “all is well” with the republic?
Romney’s key promise, at least for his supporters, is that he will repeal Obamcare: but he also promises to replace the Affordable Healthcare Act with a new law which, he says, will include a provision to mandate against denying people coverage for pre-existing conditions and that will mandate allowing adults under age 26 to stay on their parent’s insurance.
In other words, Romneycare will replace Obamacare and, while it might be an improvement in terms of regulations and taxes, it will still be “more government” involvement in healthcare than was the case before Obamacare was passed. For proponents of government control over healthcare, as a means to “help” people, Romneycare might be a step back from Obamacare, but it looks like it might not be as dramatic a step back as strict Constitutionalists might hope for.
Romney is not going to take away anyone’s pensions or social security, or Medicaid or Medicare. Those who claim he will are literally telling bold-faced lies in order to scare people into voting for Romney. But for those, such as myself, who don’t think government has ANY business in these area (although I advocate a gradual, phased pull-back from this sector of society by Washington insiders) Romney is not likely to reverse the trend towards Big Government control over everything in our society, including not only the purely civic matters but also the sacred, the social, and the market.
One area where I have been critical of the Republicans in general is their utter lack of concern for the blighted communities, particularly the inner cities, in our nation. While the GOP are fond of saying that their policies of a free market and less government will magically help these communities, this ignores three key factors-
these communities have been run by one-party regimes that have adopted the very destructive policies and ideas of progressive secular socialism coupled with a virtual hedonism that have made them internally corrupt and decadent
many of the citizens of these communities face outright, but often cloaked, racism which, coupled with a lack of education and a local culture that is increasingly missing morality, discipline, and accountability, eliminates many opportunities
the core economic factors that could help these communities, including infrastructure, rule of law, low crime, education, and a culture of personal responsibility and equal opportunity are almost totally missing
The people in these communities did not create these problems, in fact it can, and I think it should, be argued that racism is the very foundation of these problems: racism funneled the first residents into these “ghettos”, racism was exploited by local leaders who transformed the people they were claiming they wanted to help into slaves on a virtual plantation, and racism makes it hard for people to get OUT of these communities.
When I was just 8 years old I rode my bike across a bridge out of the ghetto I live in, I went into an all-white town. Because I dressed, and talked, like any other ghetto kid, I was treated like one. The ADULTS told me, in no uncertain terms, to get my “BLANK loving $#%” back across the river!
It seems to me that the GOP has its head stuck in the sand and I don’t say a Romney win changing that. It is argued, and I have heard it from many sources insideWashingtonwith my own ears, that “the Black Community wouldn’t vote for us even IF we invested in helping them.”
That’s the problem with our country today, people don’t do the right thing just because it is right. The people in those communities are NOT being served very well and we MUST do something of substance for them, because they did not create these problems for themselves, we,America, did.
Some are openly critical of Romney’s Mormonism and have refused to vote for him, they fear that he will try to “legitimize” what they see as an “illegitimate”, and heretical, sect that CLAIMS to follow Christ but that promotes “another gospel”.
I don’t see Mitt Romney as President trying to impose or inject his doctrines into the national discourse, I don’t see that he will use the White House as a vehicle for proselytizingAmerica.
The Biblical concept of the State, largely explained in Romans 13 where the role of the “magistrate” is covered, doesn’t speak much to the actual faith or beliefs of the magistrate, it only speaks to their duties, duties that do not include governing over man’s relation to God, a matter left solely with the Body of Christ in the functions of the “ecclesia”.
Mitt Romney is far more likely to violate the Biblical limits of the state’s primarily peacekeeping role by assigning to government duties and functions best left to the social and market authorities of our society than he is to invade the turf of the sacred authorities in our society. His religious beliefs, which Christians deem heretical (and I am among them) are not a factor either in his qualification or his potential behavior as President and I do not see them impacting the way he would govern.
But for some, a Romney win, coupled with a Republican takeover of the House and Senate would “save the republic”: they are as star eyed with hope and change as Obama’s supporters were before the reality of life inWashingtonDCsettled in.
If Romney does win, those who really do believe, as I do, that government should “stick to the knitting” of its primary role as “peacemaker” and protector of the common good as well as the life, liberty, and property of its citizens (by enforcing a godly standard of conduct in public life that is fair, equitable, and just), the work of reigning in government must not stop.
We must STILL be about making our LOCAL elected officials pledge to obey a right and just standard of governance, based on the Biblical model of limited government that acts primarily as peacemaker and defender of the innocent against evil, and we must hold those local officials to account, publicly, for their behavior. If they make and keep such a pledge, they should be publicly applauded and supported, if they fail to either make or keep such a pledge, they should be publicly held accountable and not supported.
Right now, advocates for a godly standard for governance, those who see a Biblical model as superior to all others because it does allow for the most freedom, security, and prosperity for all, are playing a chess game. An Obama win might, as many see it, be almost crippling to the Constitutional basis of the republic but a Romney win, while in my opinion preferable, is not going to substantially improve the status-quo.
“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb having a vote about what to have for lunch”.
Venezuela’s election wasn’t even close. The progressive strong man, Hugo Chavez, handily defeated state governor Henrique Capriles 55 to 45 in the presidential election.
But WHY, when you consider the miserable state of Venezuela’s economy, the fact that Venezuela’s capital, Caracas, is the murder capital of the WORLD, and the fact that Chavez is a menace to individual political and economic freedom?
Nobody is claiming that the vote count was crooked. Chavez is, however, accused of spending the nation’s oil revenues on his campaign, including giving hand-outs to any group of people who will vote for him.
The progressive strong man offered more of the same- more state control over the economy, more socialist wealth redistribution, and less political and economic freedom for all. Despite this, if the vote count was accurately reported, 55% of the people elected to continue down the road to a state-controlled society.
This really does give meaning to the old phrase “democracy is two wolves and a lamb having a vote about what to have for lunch”. The majority vote to eat the minority, almost every time.
This is a fundamental flaw in “pure democracy”, especially with an under-educated populace and a media establishment that parrots only one party line….but enough about what’s happening in America, this is all about Venezuela.
Do the 55% who voted to eat the 45% really think that eating their producers, and shackling them with crippling regulations, is going to work out for ANYONE in the long term, do they really think that this model is NOT going to produce more tyranny, less freedom, more control, less opportunity, and, ultimately, chaos and poverty? They evidently cannot see past their own IMMEDIATE parochial interests.
The legitimate power of the state, as defined in an objective reading of the Bible, for instance, does not extend into the realms of the sacred, the social, and the market beyond keeping the peace.
Even many who do not embrace the Bible can surely agree that this standard is better than “government can do anything it wants, as long as some popular vote is behind the politicians who run the state”.
By this standard anything MOST people want is “legitimate”, even if what they want is your life, your liberty, and your property.
For the 45% who chose to move away from the progressive nanny state and towards greater freedom and opportunity, the future looks like this-the majority are going to continue to eat the whole until there’s nothing left for anyone.
An Obama win does not mean the end of the world or the demise of the nation IF freedom lovers actually focus on their local and state governments.
For those whose priorities are ethics and morality first and then strengthening family and marriage, free and equal opportuniy for all. The economy, and America’s global security, an Obama win would be a setback. We can expect more debt, bigger and bigger government, higher energy prices, global compromise with Islamists, an all-out assault on Christian faith and values, even persecution of churches, wealth transfer from the producers to Obama suporters, among many other negative consequences.
You can be sure that Obama will continue to follow the Cass Sunstein model of regulatory tyranny in an effort to get around, and openly contradict, the will of Congress. INDEED things could get so bad that a real Constitutional crisis would emerge with open defiance of these exrra-legal regulations amd executive orders.
Publicly funded late-term abortion on demand, however, remains the greatest threat of a second term for the abortion president. Obama’s fanatical devotion to infanticide and population control is going to come to the fore if he is re-elected.
All of the things Obama accuses his opponents of he will do.
Obama will end social security, medicare and medicaid as we know it, taking benefits from millions to pay for his continued nationalization of the entire economy- his goal is total federal management over every industry in an effort to create a socialist and secular utopia. Of course he is lying about his goals and plans for the future. This is the typical path for radical socialists whose real beliefs are so unpopular.
THAT being said, if freedom seekers take the fight for a strong and prosperous free society to the local level, much of Obama’s socialist, anti-Christian agenda can be stunted and weathered.
Getting local officials to commit to resisting extra-legal and immoral policies is the key. This is what the focus of our energy needs to be if Obama wins. It would be a setback, but it wouldn’t be the end of the world.
Feb 11, 2012 … President Barack Obama will unveil a budget on Monday that projects a $901 billion deficit in fiscal 2013 while earmarking billions of dollars for …
Did Barack Obama commit treason against America by leaking THE FLAME virus …. but to where they look now that the plan has been rejected until 2013. Well …
Jun 23, 2012 …Obama’s Massive Tax Hike on Americans is now called exactly what it …. Markets : Spain’s government to announce 2013 budget and reforms …
Obama’s Massive Tax Hike on Americans is now called exactly what it is. Taxing the …. Markets: Spain’s government to announce 2013 budget and reforms …
A 40 minute sermon by Barack Obama, speaking with Reverend Jeremiah Wright in the audience, reads like standard boiler-plate liberation theology rhetoric. In the speech a strangely accented Obama is peddling the Marxist/Racist rhetoric so familiar to men like Jeremiah Wright, who denies that Jesus is God or that the Bible is the Word of God, but the problem is that this is not the “Obama” being sold to the American voters by the Progressive Media.
In the sermon, Obama refers to America’s “tragic history” regarding race and says that Hurricane Katrina opened the curtain to “what had been going on” for a long time, implying racism.
Hannity, on his show, plays samples from both the well-known Obama Race Speech that the media hailed as “historic” and the original race speech he did on this video in which he sounds totally different as a if a typical race-baiting conspiracy theorist. In fact, if the audience was White his speech would come across as White Supremacism.
Tucker Carlson believes Obama is saying “the Federal Government doesn’t like you because you’re Black” and accuses Obama of pandering and playing a “role”. He believes that when you look at these two speeches that “in at least one of them” Obama is playing a role to pander to the office- bad no matter how you slice it.
His speech essentially blames all of the problems in the Black Community on racism. He also talks about the Iraq war as a failure and says “it is time for us to end this war in Iraq.”
The speech was performed after Reverend White was dis-invited from speaking at the announcement of Obama’s candidacy, even AFTER Obama allegedly disavowed his hateful rhetoric. Far from disavowing it, in this sermon Obama mimics his language and praises him. The difference between the speech in California and the speech in Philadelphia is extremely stark, it;s as if there are two different “Obamas”.
A few lines from the speech plastered on Drudge:
‘Need help with basic skills, how to shop, how to show up for work on time, how to wear the right clothes, how to act appropriately in an office’..
‘We don’t need to build more highways out in the suburbs. We should be investing in minority-owned businesses, in our neighborhoods’…
The video was obtained by The Daily Caller and is being released via Sean Hannity on Fox News. A full version is being made available on The Daily Caller.
Obama refers to the Blacks in the room as “our People”, drawing a line of division between Black and non-Black Ameericans.
Excerpts we believe from the speech:
Obama on Pastor Jeremiah Wright-
The first presidential debate of 2012 was an overwhelming victory for Mitt Romney, so say most of the media and around 2/3rds of debate watchers.
This is bad news for the Progressives when you consider that up to 60 million Americans watched the debate. A focus group run by pollster Frank Luntz consisted of “undecided voters” who had voted for Obama in 2008- of the entire panel only 3 remained Obama supporters. If this focus group is indicative of the whole populace, Obama persuaded many or most undecided voters to swing towards Romney.
Romney stuck with a theme based on the idea that Obama’s plans are all “trickle down government”, effectively nuetralizing the “trickle down economics” argument. Romney knocked it out of the park when he complained about Obama’s spending $90 billion on “green energy”: Romney said that Obama puts his money where his heart is and that the $90 billion could have gone for 2 million teachers. This after Obama accused Romney of being “for less teachers”.
At one point a flustered Obama asked Jim Lehrer, the moderator, to “move on to another subject”, a line likely to be used in ads against him.
Obama’s supporters turned against him, shocked and dismayed at his performance. For four years Obama has been shielded from tough questions and face-to-face challenges to his rhetoric. In countless “interviews” Obama’s media supporters focus on making the President look good while reserving the “gotchya” questions for Republicans only. While this has confused the populace who are not aware of the ooposition’s responses to the Progressive meme, in this debate that meme was fairly exposed and challenged by Romney.
The debate will be a factor in this election, altough how much of a factor it will be has yet to be determines, and that can only be good for Romney.
Who Is REALLY Endangered By Iran Nukes- Surprising Answer
William Collier- World Intel Analysis- When my wife asked me “what would happen if Iran nuked Israel” it set off a series of question which left me with surprising answers.
I began to run down the scenarior of an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel and what I found was that there simply was no location where dropping a nuclear weapon on Israel favored the Iranian objectives. Anywhere such a weapon is dropped the resulting damage and fallout would severely hurt the Arab/Muslim populations nearby. Moreover, Jerusalem would be contaminated with radiation no matter where such a weapon was released in Israel.
Of course, that may not stop Iran’s psychopathic rulers from taking such an action, but it does pose an interesting question- if Israel is not really a viable target for Iranian nuclear weapons, WHO is?
It is clear that Iran IS building nuclear weapons. Anyone who doubts this is just not a serious, thinking person regarding world affairs.
If Israel is not the target directly, it is certainly the target of the nuclear program indirectly. There are targets that Iran would want to hit in order to isolate Israel and prepare the battlefield, as it were, for a more conventional attack. Iranian forces are already in Syria and are possibly moving into Lebanon.
Who then would be the target?
I propose two such targets- the straits of Hormuz or, more properly, the US and Allied naval forces there, and Europe itself.
The idea is to attack some strategic spot in Europe OR use the threat of a nuclear attack to compell the Europeans to sit on the sidelines in the case of a general Jihad against Israel. Never mind that European nations and their ally, the US, have the ability to respond in kind: the Iranian strategic concept is not based on the traditional calculus of a “winnable war”.
Iran’s leaders believe that their unleashing of a general war will bring out the “Mahdi”, a mythic figure who will come at the end of the ages to usher in a global Jihad culminating in a global Islamic caliphate. Their calculus is not based on a balance of forces that shows they would eventually have to lose, all they are concerned with is succesfully starting such a war that they believe this “Mahdi” will finish.
It is ironic that Israel is most determined to stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon while Europe and US forces in the Middle East are more likely targets of such a weapon than Israel.
Playing to fear and using rank supposition, The Associated Press ran an article today claiming that Voter ID Laws will potential cause “chaos” if the 2012 election is close. The reportage of the peice ignores the very real fraude being perpetuated by an election process that pretty much makes it a cake walk to “vote early and vote often.” While you have to have a valid ID to fly and do many other activities, including collecting benefits from the government, vote fraude perpetrators deny the need to ensure that people who vote have a legitimate right to vote. In many locales run by party machines, places like Philadaelphia for instance, it is all too common to see more votes counted then there are voters. Vote fraude deniers never take this obvious and glaring red flag into account. One suspects that illegal votes can give candidates around a 5% or more advantage over their opponents. The AP is complicit in this process and should be disclosing its so-called “reporting” as an “in kind” campaign contribution to the party they favor. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_NEVER_ENDING_ELECTION?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-09-26-03-49-18
Back FREEDOM for only $4.95/month and help the Freedomist to fight the ongoing war on liberty and defeat the establishment's SHILL press!!
Are you enjoying our content? Help support our mission to reach every American with a message of freedom through virtue, liberty, and independence! Support our team of dedicated freedom builders for as little as $4.95/month! Back the Freedomist now! Click here
Bill Collier- Under Progressivism the model of governance is based on a leadership philosophy that says “authority flows from the center and responsibility flows to the center.”
